Next year’s proxy season is shaping up to look vastly different after U.S. securities regulators released new guidance for proxy advisory firms this week. The new guidance, aimed at shedding light on conflicts of interest at the firms, could reveal more about the consulting work proxy advisers do and proxy voting mechanics.

U.S. securities regulators are planning to review possible conflicts of interests at proxy advisory firms that make annual voting recommendations to institutional investors.

The Securities and Exchange Commission said on Tuesday that it will hold a public roundtable Dec. 5 at its Washington, D.C. headquarters to discuss “the use of proxy advisory firm services” such as Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass, Lewis & Co.

The CFTC is facing a cash crunch. David Meister, who stepped down this week as the agency’s enforcement chief, tells the WSJ’s Jean Eaglesham in this interview that it is so underfunded it has had to delay cases and shelve certain probes. The funding squeeze is forcing the CFTC to make “some very tough choices” about its work, Mr. Meister said. One example: the agency’s decision not to charge two former J.P. Morgan traders over the “London whale” trading mess.

Three out of four institutional investors say it can be “problematic” for independent directors to serve a long time on a company’s board, according to a survey by Institutional Shareholder Services.

Almost half of the investors polled said they were concerned that lengthy tenures can diminish the ability of directors to serve as “independent stewards” and limit a board’s opportunities to bring on new members with fresh eyes.

Shareholder proposals on topics such as restructuring classified boards, majority voting and reducing supermajority voting requirements have often gotten more than 50% support from shareholders this year. At the same time, other proposals that have often failed to gain majority support, such as those to separate a chairman and chief executive role or allow shareholder proxy access, are gaining prevalence, according to a study last month by Meridian Compensation Partners.

But the increasing success of shareholder proxy battles comes at the same time the security of the data surrounding those votes has been cast into doubt.

Companies appear to be more satisfied with the executive compensation peer groups proxy advisory firms are using to make their voting recommendations, according to new research by law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

It’s still early in the proxy season, but fewer complaints have come in on the issue so far after the advisory firms made changes to the way they pick those groups.

Proxy season is just starting to kick into gear and executive compensation once again will be a major topic. Risk & Compliance Journal checked in with Patrick McGurn, special counsel, Institutional Shareholder Services, to talk about what the proxy adviser looks for in pay packages and how the season is shaping up so far.